The Six Point Definition of An A.A. Group

[jimhere]

The Six Point Definition of An A.A. Group from the 2/1990 version of the pamphlet "The A.A. Group":

1. All members of a group are alcoholics and all alcoholics are eligible for membership.

2. As a group, they are fully self-supporting.

3. A group's primary purpose is to help alcoholics recover through the Twelve Steps.

4. As a group they have no outside affiliation.

5. As a group, they have no opinion on outside issues.

6. As a group, their public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion, and they maintain anonymity at the level of press, radio, TV, and films.

[tomvlll]

Originally Posted by jimhere

The Six Point Definition of An A.A. Group from the 2/1990 version of the pamphlet "The A.A. Group":

1. All members of a group are alcoholics and all alcoholics are eligible for membership.
.

i can never reconcile the contradiction between this {which is supported by the long form of tradition 3}
and the short form of tradition 3

[jimhere]

Originally Posted by tomvlll

i can never reconcile the contradiction between this {which is supported by the long form of tradition 3}
and the short form of tradition 3

Read the short form this way:

The only requirement for an alcoholic to call him or herself a member is a desire to stop drinking.

It's only a contradiction if you believe it is.

These six points were removed from the pamphlet in 1991.

[Cubile75]

Originally Posted by jimhere

These six points were removed from the pamphlet in 1991.

Why?

Mark

[CarolD]

As I recall....they took it out as it was decided that
it only applied to groups chooseing to have Closed Meetings.
....but I could be mistaken.

[tommyk]

I'm glad they took it out.

More people can feel included and have a sense of belonging now.

One requirement for membership.... a desire...

[jimhere]

Originally Posted by tommyk

I'm glad they took it out.

More people can feel included and have a sense of belonging now.

One requirement for membership.... a desire...

Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree. This kind of thinking is, to my way of thinking, the epitome of what is wrong with the fellowship today.

Do you have a problem with an AA group's membership being made up of alcoholics? Or do you think that non-alcoholics should feel included and feel like they belong as well? If so, I wouldn't call it an AA group.

What about an AA group having a primary (single) purpose of helping alcoholics to recover through the Twelve Steps? Do you have a problem with that too?

The statement that all alcoholics are eligible for membership is pretty inclusive. Especially if you consider that only the individual can ultimately decide if they are alcoholic or not.
Jim

[jimhere]

Originally Posted by CarolD

As I recall....they took it out as it was decided that
it only applied to groups chooseing to have Closed Meetings.
....but I could be mistaken.

Partly right Carol. The main reason is that they felt that the current pamphlet the way it is now would convey the same message. However, I don't believe that it does, but that's just my opinion.
Jim

[Cubile75]

Originally Posted by jimhere

The only requirement for an alcoholic to call him or herself a member is a desire to stop drinking.

It's only a contradiction if you believe it is.

I think there is a lot of meaning in those very few words....

Mark

[keithj]

Another pamphlet, Problems Other Than Alcohol, gives some insight on this topic. That pamphlet was written by Bill W., and his take is that "there is no possible way to make non-alcoholics into AA members. We have to confine our membership to alcoholics." His reasoning behind that is given in the pamphlet.

I don't necessarily believe that because Bill W. said it, it must always be that way. But, the reasoning still makes sense to me. Inclusiveness sounds good and feels good, but has it's drawbacks.

http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-35_...anAlcohol1.pdf

[jimhere]

I think that many are more concerned with what makes them feel good than whether an alcoholic finds help and recovers in Alcoholics Anonymous.

[keithj]

Originally Posted by jimhere

I think that many are more concerned with what makes them feel good than whether an alcoholic finds help and recovers in Alcoholics Anonymous.

Or what makes them look good. It's an unpopular stance to stick to singleness of purpose.

[tommyk]

When I first started going to AA I wasn't ready to admit I was an alcoholic (I was just a 'problem drinker', lol), and I was adamantly opposed to doing 'the steps'.

In other words - I was in denial and I had 'an attitude'.

Everyone just kept saying, "Keep coming back".

I couldn't find anything to argue with about that, so I kept going back.

Today, the AA program and the 12 steps have changed my life 100%, I'm a believer!

I just needed to keep going back more times in order to get the message.

Regardless of what anyone thinks, and regardless of any arguments, there are no other requirements for membership today other than: a desire to stop drinking.

Worked for me when nothing else was working!

I like to see everyone that even thinks they might need to be there welcomed openly.

[Cubile75]

Excellent point tommy and I think that is probably the most lucid argument I've heard yet for keeping the tradition (short form) as it is written...

The only requirement for membership is a desire to quit drinking....

If an individual decides he's not alcoholic and the long form of the third tradition comes into play... then that individual may find that AA is not appropriate and he or she can move on....

As long as the singleness of purpose is not lost, I don't see a problem, really. In my opinion, and it's my opinion only, but it is arrived at with much thought... Singleness of purpose is not in the traditions but it must have been the real motive behind the writing of the third tradition... as opposed to the ongoing discussions regarding "hard drinker" vs. "real alcoholic" discussion. Nowhere have I read, "if you are a hard drinker but not sure if you are alcoholic... go somewhere else until you are" !!

Making the leap between the discussions in the big book regarding "real" alcoholics and the traditions regarding requirements for membership is based on conjecture. Unless or course there is a specific instance of the founders excluding those whom may be on the fence regarding the nature of the problem they may have with alcohol. But I think there is no argument here for limiting the discussions at AA meetings to those topics related to problems with alcohol....

Hopefully, only those who are truly alcoholic and have worked all twelve steps and live the 12th step will become sponsors.

OK... I will duck now.

Mark

[tomvlll]

Originally Posted by jimhere

Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree. This kind of thinking is, to my way of thinking, the epitome of what is wrong with the fellowship today.

Do you have a problem with an AA group's membership being made up of alcoholics? Or do you think that non-alcoholics should feel included and feel like they belong as well? If so, I wouldn't call it an AA group.

What about an AA group having a primary (single) purpose of helping alcoholics to recover through the Twelve Steps? Do you have a problem with that too?

The statement that all alcoholics are eligible for membership is pretty inclusive. Especially if you consider that only the individual can ultimately decide if they are alcoholic or not.
Jim

Jim, I reallly do hear what you are saying, and agree in principle with everything you are saying here.

But after thinking it over, it has my experience that there is not such a huge
problem with non-alcoholics coming to AA . That DOES happen but it seems those people 'blend into the wooodwork'.

I think a much bigger problem is alcoholics in AA who share in meetings about everything BUT the program of alcoholics. Their wives. Their husbands. Their OCD. Thier jobs. You name it.

I sit there and wait for the punch line. " I had X problem, and this is how I used the program to deal with it". But the punch line never comes.

To me, that tells the newcomer that AA meetings are about 'dumping' your problems, whatever they may be, with the group.

[Boleo]

Originally Posted by jimhere

Read the short form this way:

The only requirement for an alcoholic to call him or herself a member is a desire to stop drinking.

In my area "The only requirement for membership" is the ability to recite
Tradition 5 in it's short-form.

[jimhere]

Originally Posted by Cubile75

Excellent point tommy and I think that is probably the most lucid argument I've heard yet for keeping the tradition (short form) as it is written...

The only requirement for membership is a desire to quit drinking....

If an individual decides he's not alcoholic and the long form of the third tradition comes into play... then that individual may find that AA is not appropriate and he or she can move on....

As long as the singleness of purpose is not lost, I don't see a problem, really. In my opinion, and it's my opinion only, but it is arrived at with much thought... Singleness of purpose is not in the traditions but it must have been the real motive behind the writing of the third tradition... as opposed to the ongoing discussions regarding "hard drinker" vs. "real alcoholic" discussion. Nowhere have I read, "if you are a hard drinker but not sure if you are alcoholic... go somewhere else until you are" !!

Making the leap between the discussions in the big book regarding "real" alcoholics and the traditions regarding requirements for membership is based on conjecture. Unless or course there is a specific instance of the founders excluding those whom may be on the fence regarding the nature of the problem they may have with alcohol. But I think there is no argument here for limiting the discussions at AA meetings to those topics related to problems with alcohol....

Hopefully, only those who are truly alcoholic and have worked all twelve steps and live the 12th step will become sponsors.

OK... I will duck now.

Mark

No need to duck, but I'll have to disagree with you on several points here. Non-alcoholics will have a desire to not drink if it is enough of a problem for them. I've seen non-alcoholic addicts use the short form as an argument to justify calling themselves AA members because NA views abstinence from alcohol as a prerequisitite to stay clean. I happen to agree with that view, but it doesn't make the non-alcoholic addict an alcoholic or a member of AA.

For someone who is on the fence, by all means stick around until you find out. That may mean drinking some more in order to get a full knowledge of one's condition. My old home group's meeting is a closed meeting and it is for the person who is on the fence that we worded our format this way: "This is a closed meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous. This means that our closed meetings are for those who are seeking help for their drinking problem."

And FYI, singleness of purpose is part of our Traditions. What do you think our primary purpose is, which is Tradition Five? Our single purpose and our primary purpose are one and the same and the Third Tradition defines our membership.
Jim

[jimhere]

Originally Posted by tomvlll

Jim, I reallly do hear what you are saying, and agree in principle with everything you are saying here.

But after thinking it over, it has my experience that there is not such a huge
problem with non-alcoholics coming to AA . That DOES happen but it seems those people 'blend into the wooodwork'.

I think a much bigger problem is alcoholics in AA who share in meetings about everything BUT the program of alcoholics. Their wives. Their husbands. Their OCD. Thier jobs. You name it.

I sit there and wait for the punch line. " I had X problem, and this is how I used the program to deal with it". But the punch line never comes.

To me, that tells the newcomer that AA meetings are about 'dumping' your problems, whatever they may be, with the group.

I hear what you are saying as well, but once again I have to disagree. Our fellowship has become overran with non-alcoholics of all descriptions.

The main reason the alcoholics sit and spew this stuff is because they hear the non-alcoholics say it. The real reason behind The Six Points being removed from that pamphlet is that during the eighties, the majority of our Trustees that sat on The General Service Board were individuals with a background in the treatment industry. Also during the eighties is when the professional community began dumping huge numbers of non-alcoholics of all descriptions into our fellowship. We can't blame them, we let it happen.
Jim

[sugErspun]

This is about groups, correct?

There is a big difference between being a member of a group and attending an AA meeting (this is my opinion of course). If you are going to a meeting (which is usually more about fellowship and service than it is recovery), to find out if you are alcoholic.. is not the same as being a member or AA or the member of a group.

As far as what is shared at meetings ~ that is a little outside the scope of that pamphlet and should be addressed at the group level..

[tommyk]

I like this discussion.

I think controversy, dissention, and conflicting opinions are a BIG part of the AA learning experience.

We need to be able to encounter this type of 'constructive negativity' in meetings so we know how to better deal with it in the outside world. It is GREAT training.

Way too many people attend AA meetings, they don't like everything they find there, and they quit.

Just as they do in real life... instead of dealing with 'issues' they drink, drug, or just quit.

Learning to agree to disagree, and allowing others their thoughts (no matter how screwed up you think they are?), is a big part of the whole "life on life's terms" concept.

People do things every day that I "don't like"... I've learned through AA experiences that I can deal with it.

God grant me the serenity... right?

[sugErspun]

Perhaps I do not understand.

AA (to me) is not about learning how to live in the world, or "deal","cope" etc..with issues I have with life, people, work. It is about finding a power that could relieve my alcoholism, the process that worked in others.

I found that once that power was tapped, realized, experienced...the other things that seemed so wrong either corrected themselves..or came into proper perspective.

The training ground concept does not make sense to me, as I find life itself is a constant training ground.

take care,

[Puddy]

I want newcomers to come dump their problems - as long as those problems concern alcohol and alcoholism.

Some BB adherents disagree with me on that, to which I refer to page 160 - "Aside from fellowship and sociability, the prime object was to provide a time and place where new people might bring their problems".

So, I want to hear newcomers in meetings just oozing disease - to which we can then draw their attention to the solution. They sure ain't gonna hear the solution in a treatment center, or a process group, or a shrink, etc.

What I can't stand to hear is anyone with more than a couple of months sobriety oozing disease. They're not doing the work, but even then it's probably not all their fault - they're probably not being told about the solution.

BB Quote all editions

[Puddy]

Originally Posted by jimhere

I hear what you are saying as well, but once again I have to disagree. Our fellowship has become overran with non-alcoholics of all descriptions.

The main reason the alcoholics sit and spew this stuff is because they hear the non-alcoholics say it. The real reason behind The Six Points being removed from that pamphlet is that during the eighties, the majority of our Trustees that sat on The General Service Board were individuals with a background in the treatment industry. Also during the eighties is when the professional community began dumping huge numbers of non-alcoholics of all descriptions into our fellowship. We can't blame them, we let it happen.
Jim

Jim, an old timer in Renton told me that AA actually approached the professional community basically saying, "jails don't work, send them to us"...is this true? Perhaps they went to the treatment industry-background Trustees? I've always wondered what the story was. And maybe I heard the old timer wrong.

[FightingIrish]

I heard the solution in a treatment center.

[jimhere]

Originally Posted by FightingIrish

I heard the solution in a treatment center.

This thread wasn't intended to bash treatment centers. I don't believe it matters where you hear the message. Obviously there were some AA members carrying their message into that center.

Puddy's statement is true. How we get invited into these facilities is that in most cases, first we go to them and ask. Where I believe that we've fallen a little short of the mark is our Cooperation With The Professional Community (CPC) work. A lot of the time we focus our energies (and rightly so) into carrying our message to the clients in the treatment center when could be paying a little more attention to educating our friends in the professional community who refer their clients to us about what AA is and what AA isn't. We could be informing them why singleness of purpose is so vital, why we have no opinion on outside issues, why we are self-supporting, and why we can't affiliate ourselves with any agency or facility, but why we wish to cooperate with them instead.
Jim